---

Scotland Act 1998

I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to be patient. He will hear what Gordon from Ochil—and South Perthshire, I hasten to add—feels about more powers for the Scottish Parliament. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to John Stuart from Edinburgh, who considers the national conversation ““a Nationalist rant”” and who questions who is paying for it. Let me take this opportunity to tell John Stuart who is paying for this nationalist rant—it is Scottish taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman should also listen to Alan from Midlothian, who"““would much rather we didn't change as I believe Scotland is better the way it is””." The second round of the conversation, which we have heard a little about today, has met with equal derision, and no wonder. The First Minster has used the hastily convened opportunity for a relaunch to announce that a referendum on separatism—despite what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said—could be on the basis of multi-option preferential voting. That is an attempt to get separation at any cost. Perhaps the First Minister would be better spending his time listening to the advice given to him by CBI Scotland and getting on with the job that he is charged to do. I invite the SNP to engage in the official review of how devolution is working. At the same time, the party could show a maturity that has been lacking to date and engage constructively with the UK Government on a range of issues. We must get away from the peddled myths that Scotland is being bullied by the UK Government, the BBC and the Treasury. At the same time, we must squash the myth, as one of my colleagues has said, that for someone to be patriotic to Scotland, they must be a nationalist—they do not. We must rise above the persecuted, Braveheart image of politics in Scotland or, indeed, its ““alter image””, as described on the national conversation website—the politics of the White Heather club. Both are equally unfitting for Scotland in the 21st century.